+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Cams (/forumdisplay.php?fid=374)
+--- Forum: Former Webcam Sites (/forumdisplay.php?fid=300)
+---- Forum: BabeX TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=371)
+----- Forum: Tiffany (/forumdisplay.php?fid=108)
+----- Thread: Tiffany - Advertising (/showthread.php?tid=1177)
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - vostok 1 - 29-11-2008 00:35
Are the Babe Shows even allowed to advertise premium rate numbers, "Text to screen", "Private texts", "Photos to the Girls" and premium rate reverse billed photos to your phones?
According to this ofcom report about Babestation, they are not even allowed to do this, let alone advertise puretiffany.com
A complaint was received about promotion of two PRS during the programme. These were:
a private text chat service; and
a service whereby viewers could send in photos to the programme.
The complainant objected that neither of the services promoted appeared to contribute to the programme.
When viewing the recording of the programme, Ofcom noted it also promoted two other PRS. These were:
a service that directly invited viewers to call and speak privately to off-screen operators; and
a service offering viewers photos of the presenters.
Ofcom asked the broadcaster for its comments under Section 10 of the Code. This section requires broadcasters to ensure that the programming and advertising elements of a service are kept separate (Rule 10.2) and prohibits the promotion of products and services within programmes (Rule 10.3). It makes clear that premium rate services will normally be regarded as products and services. They must not therefore appear in programmes unless they: (i) meet the definition of programme-related material (“PRM”) or (ii) contribute to the editorial content of the programme (Rule 10.9).
Response
The broadcaster responded stating that the PRS promoted were an integral part of the programme.
In relation to the PRS that allowed viewers to contact off-screen operators, the broadcaster considered the promotion of this service within the programme was editorially justified because practical space limitations did not allow all the presenters to be viewed at the same time.
The broadcaster also believed that the services that allowed viewers to send in and receive photos were part of the interactivity of the programme. It stated that viewers of television programmes had traditionally enjoyed sending photos of themselves to presenters. Similarly, it was not uncommon for viewers to request photos of presenters. Advances in technology now allowed viewers to send and receive pictures via their mobile phones and the programme utilised modern technology to allow real time communication with viewers. The broadcaster said that while most of the pictures submitted would not be suitable for broadcast, the presenters would discuss the images on air.
The broadcaster therefore maintained that the promotion of the services within the programme conformed to the Code rules on the promotion of programme-related material (PRM).
Decision
The Code prohibits the promotion of PRS in programmes unless a service contributes to the editorial content of the programme or meets the definition of PRM.
There was no evidence in the recordings supplied that the services contributed to the editorial content of the programme: no calls or text messages to off-air services were discussed within the programme nor were photos of viewers shown or discussed.
In relation to the services meeting the definition of PRM, guidance on PRM (published on Ofcom’s website), makes clear that:
“In considering whether or not a product or service is ‘programme-related’ under the Broadcasting Code, it is important to bear in mind the principles set out in Section Ten … Broadcasters must maintain the independence of editorial control over programme content, ensure that programmes are not distorted for commercial purposes and ensure that the advertising and programme elements of a service are kept separate. It is upon these principles that Rule 10.3, which prohibits the promotion of products and services within programmes, is based. Broadcasters should bear in mind that the promotion of ‘programme-related material’ is permitted purely by way of exception to that prohibition and therefore should in no way compromise the principle of separation between advertising and programmes.”
“Broadcasters should note that for material to qualify as programme-related material, it must not only be directly derived from a specific programme but also intended to allow listeners or viewers to benefit fully from, or interact with, that programme … similarity, in terms of genre or theme(s), between a programme and product/service … is not in itself sufficient to establish that the product/service is directly derived from the programme … in order for the material to be considered programme-related material and promoted accordingly, the broadcaster would need to be able to demonstrate to Ofcom’s satisfaction that the material in question was directly derived to a significant extent from each of those programmes.
In this case, the broadcaster did not demonstrate that the off-screen text service was directly derived from the programme and allowed the viewer to “benefit fully from, or interact with”, the programme.
In relation to the service offering viewers the opportunity to talk to an off-screen ‘babe’, while this service may have been thematically similar to the service that offered viewers the opportunity to contact on-screen presenters, this in itself is not sufficient to categorise the service as programme-related. The broadcaster did not provide sufficient information to establish to Ofcom’s satisfaction that the off-screen service was in fact “directly derived” from the programme as required by the definition of PRM.
The promotions for the off-screen text and chat services within the programme were therefore unacceptable.
On the matter of the service that offered viewers pictures of the presenters, as stated in Ofcom published finding on Bang Babes (published in Broadcast Bulletin 90), Ofcom recognises that the promotion of such a service may meet the definition of PRM. However, the way in which the service was promoted on Get Lucky was unduly prominent. Under Rule 10.6 of the Code, PRM may be promoted in programmes only where it is justified to do so editorially. Promotions should in no way compromise the principle of separation between advertising and programmes. Guidance on Rule 10.6 states:
“The focus of a programme must remain its editorial content, as opposed to any promotional messages for programme-related material. The programme must not be primarily a vehicle for promotion of the product or service. Rule 10.4 (no undue prominence) also applies.”
The promotion of PRM within programmes should be driven by the needs of the audience e.g. it should be sufficient to tell viewers about the availability of material but should not be primarily a ‘sell’ for the service. In this case, the service was promoted frequently by means of on-screen text throughout the programme. In Ofcom’s opinion, the level of promotion went beyond what was reasonably justified to inform viewers about the availability of the service and appeared to be commercially motivated.
In relation to the services that allowed viewers to submit pictures to the programme, the broadcaster did not substantiate its assertion that the service contributed to the editorial content of the programme. As far as Ofcom could establish, pictures were neither shown nor discussed during the programme.
In conclusion, the broadcaster failed to adequately demonstrate that the following services contributed to the editorial of the programme or met the definition of PRM:
the off-screen chat service;
the private text service; and
the service that allowed viewers to submit photos to the channel.
Additionally, the promotion of the services that provided viewers with photos of presenters was unduly prominent.
And the decision about advertising was:
Breach of Rules 10.4 and 10.9
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - vostok 1 - 29-11-2008 00:57
Sorry about the long, boring post I made above, however I think that it should be proof to the Girls and Broadcasters not to treat their fans like total idiots when THEY are doing things that are not 100% legal...
Reading Karinas insulting post on here about paying to speak on MSN to her "helper" shows that a manager at Sex Station (Karina) treats us with contempt.
Yes, many of the callers to the Babe Shows are insulting drunkards. But we are not all like that. I think that the fans here have the power to help the shows in the long term. For every single complaint made against the shows to ofcom, there are 1000's of fans here that can write, call and offer support to the shows by contacting ofcom and telling them that we enjoy watching the shows.
Cellcast etc: We like what you produce, we support what you produce, our voice can help your future success. Just don't treat us like total mugs all the time.
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - Tara lee - 30-11-2008 22:36
guys can i please clear this up once and for all..... tiffany did not write on this site, she never has. i dont know who did but do know for a fact that it was not her, so you are all slating her for some thing that she did not do, she is a really kind and caring girl who goes out her way to help others and what you see on tv is the girl playing "tiffany" fine if you dont like her but just leave her to get on with it. yes she is going to advertise her site thats what its there for. sorry to have a rant but i know the girl on a personal level and she is not like you think she is. sorry but i had to have my say like you all have. xx
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - TheDude - 01-12-2008 01:18
If thats true then a lot of these other Babes maybe troll impersonators or cellcast employees.
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - Tara lee - 01-12-2008 01:51
thats true, u never know who s writting behing the cmputer, i know definatly that amanda is who she says she is on her and also me but not sure wot other girls write on here. xx
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - *Kal-El* - 01-12-2008 01:58
hey tara, how you been today?
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - HEX!T - 01-12-2008 07:09
funny that the admin has put a request up from tiffany telling members not to post anything from her site. fair enough. but the admin must of had reason to belive it was tiffany to do so. maybe an email with the addy tiffany@cellcast.com ot tiffany@babestartion or some other headers in the email that made him think it was legit.
but the same member calling herself tiffany and for argument sake is tiffany, threatend to take legal action over a vid that was not and has not apeared on her site. if it wasnt tiff why would they say they were and why threaten legal action?
so for all intents and purposes whom ever that was, represented tiffany and represents tiffanys oppinions
my guess is it was tiffany and now realises how much of an ass she's been and that the members here would probably have signed up to her site. well for 1 month at least, but tiff or her reprisentation deffinatley screwed that up...
personaly i'd say good riddance if we never see or hear from her again on this site...
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - aaron - 01-12-2008 07:15
TheDude Wrote:a lot of these other Babes maybe troll impersonators
Two girls on different channels told me when I called them that this forum is widely read by the babes.
If any of them were being impersonated, I think they would be quick to say so, rather than let it continue.
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - elgar1uk - 01-12-2008 07:53
It would indeed be strange if a girl was being impersonated but chose to say nothing.
RE: Tiffany - Advertising - TITSRUS - 01-12-2008 09:38
tara lee Wrote:guys can i please clear this up once and for all..... tiffany did not write on this site, she never has. i dont know who did but do know for a fact that it was not her, so you are all slating her for some thing that she did not do, she is a really kind and caring girl who goes out her way to help others and what you see on tv is the girl playing "tiffany" fine if you dont like her but just leave her to get on with it. yes she is going to advertise her site thats what its there for. sorry to have a rant but i know the girl on a personal level and she is not like you think she is. sorry but i had to have my say like you all have. xx
Hi Tara sorry to say this but who ever told you it wasn't Tiffany lied to you cause a few days after she demanded her stuff to be taken down I was talking to her & we ended up talking about this forum plus she said her self that she said it...
I'm sure I said this in 1 of the Tiffany Topics I just wish I recorded the conversation to prove it!!!